Date: Fri Sep 3 22:38:15 1999 From: editor@telecom-digest.org Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #371 To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
TELECOM Digest Sat, 4 Sep 99 01:38:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 371
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
FCC Mandates New Telephone Surveillance Features (Monty Solomon) Problems BAM Text Messaging (Jon Solomon) Re: Local Loop Responsibilities (Adam H. Kerman) Re: Teletype Plant Torn Down (Alan Boritz) Re: Safety Requirements For Telephone Lines (Darryl Smith) Re: The Net's First Civil War (Greg Skinner) Junk Faxes in Texas (Alan Bunch) 1A2 HELP!!!! (Christopher W. Boone) What Price War? Long-Distance Carriers Just Fine (Monty Solomon) Net2Phone: Blowing Bubbles or Not? (Monty Solomon)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety o networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************
In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 22:55:11 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: FCC Mandates New Telephone Surveillance Features
============================================================= C D T P O L I C Y P O S T *********************************************************************** A BRIEFING ON PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES AFFECTING CIVIL LIBERTIES ONLINE from THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY *********************************************************************** Volume 5, Number 21 August 31, 1999 =============================================================
CONTENTS: (1) FCC Mandates New Telephone Surveillance Features (2) Turning Cell Phones Into Tracking Devices; Other Features (3) Packet Switching - CALEA's Sleeper Issue (4) CDT Examines Appeal (5) Subscription Information (6) About the Center for Democracy and Technology
** This document may be redistributed freely with this banner intact ** Excerpts may be re-posted with permission of ari@cdt.org This document is also available at: http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_5.21.html _______________________________________________________________________
(1) FCC MANDATES NEW TELEPHONE SURVEILLANCE FEATURES
On Friday, August 27, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ordered the nation's telephone companies to modify their switching equipment to provide more information to government agencies conducting electronic surveillance. The Commission largely rejected privacy concerns and aligned with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which had sought the enhanced monitoring capabilities under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA).
The decision was the latest step in a long-running struggle over the surveillance potential of communications technology. CALEA was enacted in 1994 after the FBI complained to Congress that new digital technology and other advance services would soon make it impossible to carry out wiretaps and other electronic surveillance. The FBI originally sought direct control over phone system design. Congress refused to grant the Bureau that kind of power, but adopted CALEA with the intent of balancing law enforcement, privacy and industry interests. Congress made it clear that CALEA was intended to preserve but not enhance government monitoring capabilities. The Act left design decisions to the telephone industry, subject to FCC review.
However, soon after CALEA was enacted, the FBI began insisting on very specific surveillance features, including some never before available to the government. After industry worked with law enforcement agencies to draft technical standards to put CALEA into effect, the FBI claimed the industry plans did not go far enough and petitioned the FCC to order additional, specific surveillance features. CDT claimed that the industry plan failed to protect privacy and opposed the FBI's add-ons. _________________________________________________________________
(2) TURNING CELL PHONES INTO TRACKING DEVICES; OTHER FEATURES
The most immediately disturbing element of the FCC's ruling was its requirement that cellular and other wireless phone companies provide the capability to identify where their customers are at the beginning and end of every call, effectively turning wireless phones into tracking devices. In 1994, FBI Director Louis Freeh testified twice before Congress that CALEA did not cover this kind of location information. While many cellular systems already have some ability to locate callers, CDT argued to the FCC that this should not be a mandatory element of system design. CDT was concerned that, as the technology evolves, the FBI is likely to seek more and more precise location information. The FCC ignored the legislative history and rejected CDT's concerns
In addition, for both wireline and wireless systems, the FCC ruled that six other specific surveillance features sought by the FBI were required by CALEA. One of the six requires carriers to ensure that the government will be able to continue listening to those on a conference call after the criminal suspect has dropped off the call. Another add-on guarantees the government access to credit card numbers and bank account data generated when a user punches numbers on a telephone. Other add-ons ensure government access to the detailed signaling information generated in connection with calls, information that law enforcement would obtain under a legal standard lower than the one required to conduct a wiretap. CDT and the telephone industry had argued that none of these items was required by CALEA.
Carriers are currently required to comply with most aspects of CALEA, including the location mandate, by June 30, 2000. The other features required by the FCC last week must be available to the government by September 30, 2001.
_________________________________________________________________
(3) PACKET SWITCHING - CALEA'S SLEEPER ISSUE
One CALEA issue of immense importance has received little press attention: how to conduct electronic surveillance in packet environments. Packet technology, until recently used mainly on the Internet, breaks communication into many small packets, each consisting of some addressing information and some content. For efficiency's sake, the packets may be transported by various routes, and are reassembled at their intended destination to create a coherent communication. Packet technology is becoming increasingly important for voice communications, posing the risk that the government will obtain access to the content portion of packets when it has only satisfied the lower legal standard for intercepting the call routing or addressing information.
CDT argued that CALEA imposes on carriers an affirmative obligation to design their equipment, to the extent technically reasonable, to withhold content from the government when the government has not met the legal standard to intercept it. Industry responded that carriers should be allowed to disclose everything to law enforcement, including content, and rely on the government not to read (or listen to) what it is has no authority to intercept.
The FCC declined to require carriers to protect the privacy of packet communications that the government is not authorized to intercept. Instead, the FCC requested the industry to report on what steps can be taken to protect the privacy of packet communications. Last Fall, the Commission asked the same question and industry said that protecting privacy was too hard. This leaves it to CDT to prove to the industry that the technology can be designed to protect privacy.
______________________________________________________________
(4) CDT EXAMINES APPEAL
CDT had believed that CALEA was a balanced statute. We had accepted the FBI Director's assurances that the statute would not be used as a mandate for cell phone tracking, and we had believed that the FCC would resist any FBI efforts to dictate surveillance enhancements. Yet on all the issues that mattered, the Commission ruled against privacy and in favor of expanded law enforcement surveillance. The ability of the FBI to turn CALEA on its head does not generate confidence in government claims to be seeking balanced solutions on other issues such as encryption.
CDT is deciding whether to appeal the decision of the FCC to the federal Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia.
As of August 31, the full text of the FCC's order has not been released. The only official description of the FCC's action comes in the form of FCC press releases, which are available at http://www.cdt.org/digi_tele/fccpress0899.shtml
For background on CALEA, go to http://www.cdt.org/digi_tele/
_______________________________________________________________________
(5) SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION
Be sure you are up to date on the latest public policy issues affecting civil liberties online and how they will affect you and what you can do to make a difference! Subscribe to the CDT's Activist Network.
You'll receive:
A) CDT Policy Posts, the regular news publication of the Center for Democracy and Technology are received by Internet users, industry leaders, policymakers the news media and activists, and have become the leading source for information about critical free speech and privacy issues affecting the Internet and other interactive communications media.
B) Updates on what you can do to make sure that the Internet remains a decentralized, open, global and user-controlled medium, including information on the actions of your representatives in Congress.
To subscribe to CDT's Activist Network, sign up at:
If you ever wish to remove yourself from the list, unsubscribe at:
http://www.cdt.org/action/unsubscribe.shtml
If you just want to change your address, you should unsubscribe yourself and then sign up again or contact: webmaster@cdt.org _______________________________________________________________________
(6) ABOUT THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY/CONTACTING US
The Center for Democracy and Technology is a non-profit public interest organization based in Washington, DC. The Center's mission is to develop and advocate public policies that advance democratic values and constitutional civil liberties in new computer and communications technologies.
Contacting us:
General information: info@cdt.org World Wide Web: http://www.cdt.org/
Snail Mail: The Center for Democracy and Technology 1634 Eye Street NW * Suite 1100 * Washington, DC 20006 (v) +1.202.637.9800 * (f) +1.202.637.0968
End Policy Post 5.21
------------------------------
From: Jon Solomon <jsol@trillian.mit.edu> Subject: Problems BAM Text Messaging Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 16:06:27 -0400
I have enabled Text Messaging as part of my BAM phone, which currently doesn't work in the following way:
Mail directly to my phone works fine. Mail to a mailbox (say jsol@trillian.mit.edu), which forwards to the phone number, fails and does not issue a warning.
I tried to contact Bell Atlantic Mobile's customer service, and they referred me to a toll free number of some software maintainence firm, who promptly put me in a voice mail mailbox, and I asked them to call me, and they have not.
Who knew?
--jsol
------------------------------
From: Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> Subject: Re: Local Loop Responsibilities Date: 3 Sep 1999 16:05:13 -0500 Organization: Chinet - Public Access since 82
Kevin Stone <kstone@cohesive.com> wrote:
> The conduit comes in underground through the foundation. GTE hasn't > called me yet but I guess I'm just expecting the worst when trying to > get them to do something out of the norm.
I'm sorry I don't have a citation, but I'm sure I read it here first: There is an exception to the general rule that the point of demarcation must be on the outside of a building if the service enters underground. Then, you may have the point of demarcation on the inside of an outside wall.
Your phone service comes in through conduit? You are fortunate, indeed. If they can't or won't feed pairs through the existing conduit, they'll just bury a wire. Unless code requires it, you can't force them to install new conduit. If you want it, you'd probably have to pay for it.
Get them to bury a new line with lots of vacant pairs on it as long as you are at it.
------------------------------
From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Teletype Plant Torn Down Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 22:07:29 -0400 Organization: Dyslexics UNTIE
In article <telecom19.367.10@telecom-digest.org>, lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) wrote:
> (There was an extensive discussion about the Teletype ASR 33 in that > newsgroup recently, too, including comments on maintenance and hooking > it up to a modern computer.)
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am no longer in the area, but when I > was in the area I was in the Village Crossing shopping center on > various occassions, and years before Village Crossing I had been in > the Teletype complex. It was sad to see it go, and I can tell you that > in the 1960's and 1970's no one ever would have imagined the time > would come when there would not be Teletype; neither would there be a > Bell System or a Western Union. Mark Cuccia has collected a lot of > history on Teletype and its role in telephony in the first half of > the century. Some of it is in the Telecom Archives. PAT]
If you had to work with them every day as part of your job you may not be so nostalgic. I've had to work with the ASR33 with and without paper tape drives, and all it's brothers, sisters, and cousins, and am very glad they're no longer in circulation.
------------------------------
From: Darryl Smith <vk2tds@ozemail.com.au> Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 11:03:17 +1000 Subject: Re: Safety Requirements For Telephone Lines
G'Day
I have seen the issue from a different side. I work in the power industry here in Australia. Since we are a generator, we have voltages up to 500 kV lying round our substations and power stations. This gives the phone companies nighmares.
For those that do not know, substations are a work of art ... They put in a grid of 1 inch * 1/8 inch copper bar on a 3 foot grid throughout the entire substation!!! This is so that if there is an earth fault, the voltage of all the earth rises, and anyone on the property is safe.
Also the fence around the substation is NEVER continuous. There are always a few wooden poles. This is so there is not a continuous circuit around the outside of the substation. Under earth fault, this becomes a shorted turn, with enough energy to weld together a large chain/padlock holding the gate closed.
Also there are cases of substations being in padocks, where cattle are looking at the activity in the substation. Where the earth grid does not extend far enough out there are dangers. In this situation, during one earth fault, the voltge potential between the front and rear legs of the cattle was enough to kill the cattle.
How does this relate to the phone system? Well, if you were feeding phone lines into such a place there is always a danger ...
So in substations they have rooms that are electrically isolated. They have wooden floors, with equipment in wooden cabinets, with very high quality isolating transformers. This goes some way to protect the equipment
Thinking of the worst case, and the isotation breaks down there s a problem. I remember that there is design work done such that they use the cables to actually current limit. The cable becomes a resistor. If the voltage rises, current tries to flow ... but because of the length of cable, there is not much at the telco end. I believe that they also run a 2nd cable to cancel out any rises in the earth potential.
In Australia I believe that Extra Low Voltage is slightly different. I cannot remember what the voltage is, but it is different.
Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International]
------------------------------
From: gds@nospam.best.com (Greg Skinner) Subject: Re: The Net's First Civil War Date: 3 Sep 1999 13:12:43 -0700 Organization: a user of Best Internet Communications, Inc. www.best.com
Thus saith <telecom19.369.7@telecom-digest.org>:
> TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But therein lies the rub. Directory > assistance is not in very good shape these days either. All sorts of > companies are providing it, with varying degrees of accuracy. It is > more expensive than ever, and less reliable than ever. Do you want > to start entering a URL in your browser address line and wind up > getting connected to the completely wrong site? It is extremely > critical that whoever handles this function handle it well.
However, if things are to be done reliably, there has to be some coordination. This means the disputing parties need to resolve their differences and work towards a common goal. So far, the disputing parties don't seem to be able to come to some kind of consensus. Thus the door has now been opened for independents to erect their own root server systems. I have no objection to independent root server systems, but I don't see much coordination between them (at present). If this doesn't change, we may very well have directory assistance quality DNS.
Should independent companies compete, based on quality of service (including accuracy) for domain name service? I don't know. I also don't know if this means the public is any better served.
gregbo gds at best.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 22:39:01 -0500 From: Alan Bunch <alabun@spyderinc.com> Subject: Junk Faxes in Texas
I know others have sued in state courts, small claims or otherwise, and recovered from junk fax compaines. I was just at the FCC site and it seems to indicate that some states allow and some don't. Anyone know if Texas does.
Anyone have a check list or forms to fill in. I have two winners of $500 damage claims in my inbox now. I'll gladly share my first win for information leading to the successful suit and damage payment.
You know if this keeps up I might have a job change ahead.
Alan Bunch Spyder Enterprises Inc. alabun@spyderinc.com 817-329-3692 http://www.spyderinc.com Personal service at it's best !
------------------------------
From: Christopher W. Boone <cboone@earthlink.net> Subject: 1A2 HELP!!!! Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 16:55:10 -0500 Organization: Clear Channel-Dallas (KDMX/KEGL) Engineering Department
We have two 1A2 keysystems at work ... Both are WE 1A2 cabinets with the following make of cards in them:
SAN/BAR WE SC 4000F 400F 400F 4200A MOH 400D 451 MOH
I need docs on all of the above (wiring and jumper settings, etc) asap!!! Trying to get MOH to work ... and its not right yet!
PLEASE reply to my email address directly NOT the NG ... AND PLEASE cc: my earthlink.net address (cboone@xxxx.xxx just like my jacor address above)
Tnx!
Chris (WB5ITT) Chief Engineer Clear Channel Radio--Dallas, TX KDMX 102.9 / KEGL 97.1
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 22:41:45 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: What Price War? Long-Distance Carriers Just Fine
Clueless Investor What price war? Long-distance carriers just fine
By Jeffry Bartash, CBS MarketWatch Last Update: 2:10 PM ET Aug 30, 1999
WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- Since late July, shares of U.S. long-distance leader AT&T have tumbled more than 16 percent. Ditto for MCI WorldCom, the No. 2 carrier. And Sprint, the third largst provider, has fallen off a similar amount.
What's going on here? Simple. Many investors are worried that a wave of price cuts in the long-distance consumer sector is going to short-circuit revenue and profits. Are these fears warranted? Many analysts don't think so.
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/archive/19990830/news/current/clueless.htx
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 22:45:54 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <mnty@roscom.com> Subject: Net2Phone: Blowing Bubbles or Not?
By Thom Calandra, CBS MarketWatch Last Update: 4:10 PM ET Aug 31, 1999
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS.MW) -- A friend of mine and I were going through the long list of short-sale candidates out there.
What we found is a lesson in safe investing: how to refrain from betting against a stock (via a short-sale) even if the company' stock price has gotten ahead of itself.
One freshly scrubbed technology stock, Net2Phone (NTOP: news, msgs), has already quintupled from a late-July offering. The shares on Nasdaq, after rising relentlessly Tuesday, give the Internet telephony company a market value of $4 billion. Is that too much?
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/archive/19990831/news/current/stwatch.htx
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #371 ******************************